> > The debconf templates used in that package really sound like debconf abuse > > to me. > > See my comment in the postinst.
OK, I read it as well as the full batch of nonsense that is named LICENSE. I understand better and I also understand better why an experience DD was doing what I initially called "debconf abuse". > > > I don't think that debconf has been designed for such questions which sound > > like a legal nonsense to me. I suspect they may have been driven by > > discussions with upstream but, really, debconf is not meant for this. > > There are other non-free packages that require the user to acknowledge > some "agreement". Is it really worse to use debconf for this, where the > text is short? No, that seems fine, after some thinking. Feel free to either close this bug or mark it "wontfix". I'd suggest the latter to save you from other bug reports being opened later with the same issue being reported. *Now*, I will launch the debconf review (even if, at first glance, I don't see much things to change/adapt).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
